?

What do you think self discipline is? Like what does it mean for someone to have more or less of it? How could you tell?

I ask because to me it’s executive function. which had a physiological basis and varies based on physiological state. So someone without a well functioning executive function system’s best would look kinda arse to someone who had a functional one.

OP have you considered that the state you’re seeing them in is them trying their best?

Best isn’t static right, like when I run some sometimes my best is wheezing and throwing up through 5 km in 50 minutes because I’m hungover and sleep deprived, sometimes it’s getting shoes on and stepping outside before deciding to quit, and sometimes it’s nailing a pb on a 15 km run and only cutting it short because I have responsibilities and shit.

You just don’t know what’s going on in someone’s life. I am diagnoses adhd and have been undergoing treatment for 15 years. Mostly I seem like a kinda lazy spinster with too many hobbies and an untidy yard; sometimes I’m a whirl of activity and achievement; and other times I spend 3 weeks paralysed on the couch, absolutely wracked with guilt and self loathing, pleading for my brain to just give me enough of anything to feed myself for the first time in 3 days while my head pounds from dehydration and I want to peal my skin off for how dirty and uncomfortable it is.

Every moment is me trying my best. I can’t imagine not extending the courtesy of that belief to everyone else.

I don’t think most people enjoy feeling like a burden, judged as lazy, or living in filth and failing to achieve their goals.

Usually for someone to smoke weed all day and play video games or w/e without maintaining hygiene and health something has to be seriously wrong. Animals not maintaining themselves is like the biggest warning sign that something is wrong.

To simplify that as ‘So and so lacks self discipline’ is moronic. Maybe they claim they have adhd and they don’t but something is fucking wrong with a brain in that state and they need help.

Gimble vice and a fleshlight?

Look ultimately words mean what they mean in the context that they’re spoken but broadly neoliberalism is highly socially permissive. Provided, that is, one does this as a responsible member of the capitalist economy and doesn’t disrupt the market.

Like you can have neoliberals that love trans kids, celebrate pride, want more black female drone pilots etc. It is, however, not a neoliberal position say compare the number of vacant properties to the number of homeless people and suggest that perhaps we should just take the unused houses and give them to homeless people? That would violate the principles of private property and free markets. After all: what freedom does one have if you can’t watch someone freeze to death on the doorstep of your vacant investment?

If your friends think that freedom to do that is utterly absurd and a society which defends that is fundamentally rotten then they are not liberals in the academic sense, however their substantially more leftist stance may be called liberalism in the political context you find yourselves in.

To clarify my question. What do you mean ‘actually liberal’ ideologies?

Like what are their thoughts on monetarism?private property? free association? private entities in markets? Debt and paying it, both private and state held?

If they think that the state should provide the means of subsistence of the entire populus, that property should in general be held in common and private property is not sacred, that government entities in a market are often more effective than private and/or that business should be heavily regulated to serve common good, that debts should be cancelled when it is not realistic or fair to pay them etc. Or perhaps even further afield positions like questioning nation States, police, militaries and boarders… well, then they are not in fact liberals haha.

What do they see as different between neoliberalism and classical liberalism. Neoliberalism is mostly a post-Keynesian revitalisation of classical liberal economic positions updated with modern banking practices and globalisation.

… everyone? hence my use of broadly? It has complete and utter ideological hegemony since like the 70s. If you study economics you study neoliberal economics and they don’t even bother specifying. All major political parties in the anglosphere and most of western Europe follow neoliberal ideology, even the green-left is largely neoliberal. There are basically no classical liberals left.

She makes a handful of digital toys free. Slurs hurt real people. Keep this in context

I think I misunderstood you.

See my other comment for why I think freedom is sort of a useless thing to frame anything around. At least without further clarification.

Reactionary ideologies are incoherent.

I think it’s tempting to try and be pithy but freedom is complicated. For some people freedom is an absolute, do what you want when you want. For some it is about theoretical possibilities, for example if you ask if people are free to quit there job the answer heavily depends on how someone balances theory vs practice. Others take a practical lens, freedom only counts if it’s plausible to do.

Sometimes freedom is about ideals. you are free to read all the political theory you like, you umm wont because it’s boring but if someone threatened that would you be upset? At other junctures freedom because pragmatic, “what use is freedom to read if I don’t have freedom to eat? I’ll trade one for the other” someone might say.

Some people rate permissions more than restrictions, some the opposite.

I don’t think it’s a concept we can really pin down. Everyone has their own interpretation and it’s not universally values: much as dominant ideologies often insist it is, the rise of fascism should hint that others care much less about it.

Sigh, I’ll wade into this river of shit.

Liberalism is broadly understood as neoliberalism, which is an ideological descendant from classical liberalism. This ideology positions itself as being broadly in favour of individual freedom within a rather tight definition of freedom. Namely liberals are concerned with the ability of people to read what they like, own what they like, marry whomever they like and so on provided they do this inside of a system of capitalist free market exchange.

Modern liberalism tends to frown on heavy government intervention in market affairs, which they see as representing the free (and thus good) exchange of goods between individuals. They also tend to be broadly in favour of the militaristic western global hegemony.

Criticism of this attitude comes from 2 places.

1. too much freedom.

2. not enough freedom.

(1) is people that want women bound up in the kitchen and walk around with an odd gait that makes you remember Indiana Jones films

(2) are people (I’m in this camp) who see liberalism as a weak ideological position that favours stability over justice and, in so doing, ignores the suffering of billions.

Lots of people are wrong. The stuff in Nair attacks sulfur bridges in keratine. This makes it physically fragile so you can scrape it off.

It doesn’t dissolve the keratin though.

In theory you could break it into lots of small pieces by say pointing a water jet down the drain (or plunging or whatever) after treatment. Whether this is enough to loosen it will have a lot to do with other stuff in the drain/geometry/penetration depth. It may just make a gel that plugs the drain.

I’m in that bin and I’d say that a significant portion of my symptoms could be alleviated by making the world less of a horror show.

We’ve made society inequitable to the extent that if you go outside you will see heartbreaking tragedy, you have to pay to exist basically anywhere and consequently you have zero freedom, basically all of life is dictatorial, your mind is constantly under assault by ads/propaganda, family and friends are destroyed by forcing everyone to move around to find work/shelter, and you’re constantly like 3 bad months from losing it all.

TBH I’m shocked at how few people are depressed.

fair fair. I assume the group is probably planning to run a more interventionist study to see if the results hold when you run time forward.

It’ll be good news if it works (maybe, I do worry we’re going towards a brave new world style future where disquiet with the status quo is pathologised and medicated away. stunting criticism) but I won’t go bat for it yet.

I never actually got through my PhD and it was in physics anyway but yeah. It always seemed to me that the messier fields had these New Exciting Techniques ™ where you could vacuum up absolutely insane amounts of data and then play with stats till it showed what you wanted.

I don’t want to be like “Hur der they’re doing it wrong”. Studying anything to do with biology necessarily means you’re stuck with systems with trillions of variables and you have the awful problem of trying to design experiments where they hopefully average into background. I just thing that, consequently, until stuff replicates a few times (which, unfortunately, is almost never done because it’s not sexy. Anyway often papers are written so badly, and the universe so gloriously subtle, even mechanistic stuff like synthesis is a struggle to replicate) big headlines are irresponsible.

Is it though? Isn’t that more vulnerable to p-hacking and it’s kindred. I lack the expertise to make much of the paper, I’m just pretty disappointed with neuropsych as a field :P Data on depression treatment success are already noisy as fuck and in replication hell, classifying noisy as fuck data from fmri into broad patterns seems challenging in a repeatable fashion.

I guess we’ll find out in time if this replicates, if anyone even tries to do that.

Unless there has been serious effort in addressing the poor quality of fmri studies since the dead fish paper I would recommend cautious outlook.

article and link to fish study: https://law.stanford.edu/2009/09/18/what-a-dead-salmon-reminds-us-about-fmri-analysis/